After months and months NASA finally (maybe) gets some direction

After months and months and months of uncertainty it looks like the space agency will finally see come clarity in its human spaceflight mission: three more shuttle flights (instead of two), fly the International Space Station for a decade, step up production of a heavy lift rocket and increase support for private rockets to carry humans into orbit.

This is the gist of the Senate authorization bill for NASA, which represents a compromise between President Obama’s original budget request way back in February and the House bill, which essentially was Constellation part deux. The House is expected to vote on the Senate bill tomorrow.

My sense is that there was a lot of support outside NASA’s workforce for the President’s bill among those who wanted to shoot for Mars and were willing to give the space agency an extreme makeover in order to do so. But there was little support inside the space agency for gutting NASA’s human spaceflight efforts for the next decade or so.

On the other hand, I didn’t find many people outside the House of Representatives who supported the House bill, which kept key elements of the Constellation program alive while starving commercial spaceflight.

The Senate bill struck a compromise in that it will reduce the job cuts in President Obama’s proposal but also save some money for innovation and allow commercial providers their chance to carry humans to the International Space Station.

The Senate struck a compromise.

It also had a fair amount of support from members of the Augustine committee, which said NASA’s present state of affairs was unsustainable.

“Those who want to change the way things have been done as an important step forward to a human future beyond [low Earth orbit] should, in my opinion, strongly support the Senate version of the NASA authorization,” Princeton University professor Christopher Chyba, Augustine committee member, wrote in an e-mail obtained by Space News earlier this year.

In a reply Norman Augustine himself wrote, “I am of course prepared to address ‘facts,’ and I believe it to be correct that the Senate bill comes closer to any of the options in our report than the House bill.”

Perhaps most importantly an agreement on authorization funding effectively curtails the prolonged limbo in which NASA and its commercial contractors have found themselves in for more than a year. Jobs will be saved. Jobs will be created. And with luck we’ll be flying humans beyond the moon in about 15 years.

Had this deal not happened NASA would have remained in limbo well into next year with considerable deleterious effects.

So give credit to politicians for crafting a bipartisan approach — Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Bill Nelson deserve the most credit — and getting something done for human spaceflight. That’s no small task in the waning days of a hyper-partisan Congress.

NASA is our hope for future innovation. Our human need to explore and create is being accomplished with the brightest minds of employees of NASA. Cutting programs at NASA is a bad idea for the USA and the world. Innovations discovered at NASA and the trickle-down effects result in forward-thinking Americans. Please do not take away our dreams for space travel and other solutions within our lifetime.

It takes decades to plan human space flights. A six-month wait to make sure the choices are good is nothing. You critics need to take your ADHD meds. Not everything happens at a moment’s notice and in space flight, nothing does.

I will state first off that I am glad to finally see some clarity coming out. It is long overdue to say the least.

That being said, a lot of damage has already been done. Hundreds were lost just a couple weeks ago These are workers that will be needed for exploration systems who have already been unnecessarily shown the door – namely due to politics. I’m not just talking about Shuttle based people either.

Its time for the space community to stop rooting against each other and start rooting for NASA and its contractors, whether established or start-ups.

NASA will now stay in the human spaceflight business. Orion is saved allowing NASA to own and operate (but not build) its own exploration craft. Orion\SLS will be operational, skipping the unnecessary Ares I.

Hopefully we will see commercial access to LEO while NASA pushes the boundary of how far mankind can travel. They can coexist as long as the fighting over pennies within the space community doesn’t tear things apart from within.

Thank you Eric for reporting non-biased news during this fiasco. It it a hard thing to find during these times.

Thank you Eric. This is most definitely good news given that the Fiscal Year ends on September 30, and with is THOUSANDs of jobs. I know hundreds of people, first hand knowledge, being laid off come Friday.

I’m very confused by those who consider themselves conservative. NASA = government. The bigger NASA is, the bigger government is. The bigger NASA’s budget, the bigger the government budget. Yet you support a larger NASA with more government employees?! Instead of Obama’s proposal that called for larger private sector space investment (ie, businesses making money…typically what conservatives like to see). You guys confuse the heck outta me.

For some reason the conservative critics of Obama can not wrap their heads around the fact that Obama’s proposal included a major INCREASE in NASA’s budget and encourages privatization of space flight.

-

Why is it that conservatives refuse to support the private sector when doing so means “publicly funded” jobs in their states will go away? (As if former NASA employees will be unable to find work in the private sector with their skills, knowledge and talent…)

-

Looks to me as if Texans just love those Federal dollars a lot more than they care to publicly admit.

This is good news; the least awful solution has been chosen. (The best solution would have been fully funding NASA for 20 years and getting out of its way. The House bill came close to being the worst solution. I’ll take what I can get on this one.)

You’re mixing up a couple of different issues. If the total area encompassed by a pie chart represents total federal spending, a conservative politician wants that chart to be as small as reasonably possible. That doesn’t mean that a conservative congressman should abdicate their constituency’s slice to another state or district. Even Dr. No, Ron Paul, gets that!

That doesn’t mean that a conservative congressman should abdicate their constituency’s slice to another state or district.

********

What if it were in the best interests of the nation as a whole, even if it were not good for that constituency? If NASA were to close several of the outlying centers and center the manufacturing in one state, their costs would go down and we could get more blast for the buck. That would obviously be good for the nation, even if it meant closing Stennis, JPL, and JSC in order to expand KSC.

Since many, if not most, NASA civil servants merely oversee what contractor employees do, why not reduce their large number to just enough to administer to the contract? A Reduction in Force (RIF) is needed to reduce costs. Those persons RIFed should be able to find work with contractors

unless they’ve lost their engineering talent. As a retired federal employee, I know all too well that many coworkers never applied any of the skills that they learned in college.

Please do not ‘beat up on conservatives’ for supporting NASA. First off, there are few private companies that would take on space exploration projects where initial outlays of cash will be monumental with no expectation of even long term profit. That is not how capitalism works.

The job of government from my independent, yet conservative view point, is to provide momentum for space exploration which means unfortunately, they must fund it. The bottom-line ticket price for NASA is much less than the government’s self-appointed role of say feeding, providing medical care and educating the masses without a care as to these recipient’s nationality or ability to be gainfully employed. Nor does NASA compare to the baleout for US car companies and greedy Wall Street bankers who took advantage of other vote-buying policies of the left, no man should be without a mortgage. Most of this nation’s fiscal problems can be directly traced to political jockeying and it is time to stop. For a CHANGE, a program I SUPPORT is getting funded by the federal government. There is HOPE afterall.

It seems too little too late. My spouse’s job ends Friday. Applications have been out, but no one is hiring because nothing has been settled. I hope this changes but I think it is going to split the family. At least I am still working, for now……

NASA’s total budget (as well as the budget for scientific R & D grants) equals roughly 3% of the total defense or social security budgets. Imagine the work that can be done if these budgets are increased to a mere 4% or 5% of these budgets. I would argue that investments in Space and Science can do more for the future health of the economy, educational system and humanity in general than either the defense or Social Security departments ever could.

True story. I called 8 or 9 old co-workers today to see if they were interested in one of the 3 software developer positions we have open. 2 of them offered me a job at their companies. I think the economy is BACK!!!. Could it be manipulation to make it look like the Republicans fixed the economy in about 3 months after some of them get elected this November? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t care either way, Anyway, the good news is, I think things are starting back up!!! If you are out of a job, start calling up your old contacts and Good luck to you.

So, the “thousands” of lost jobs in Clear Lake turned out to be 1,100. And to save 350 of those jobs we’re abandoning research in new space technologies and designing another Constellation ship that will never get paid for?

I am a life long NASA fan, and have to say am excited about the private space companies SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, and others entering the market. That said, I am sure NASA still has to do the heavy lifting in the foreseeable future for Mars programs etc. However, a few decades ago I never thought the Soviet Union would go away in my lifetime. Partnerships are the way to go.

Humans in space is a great goal, but do the ends justify NASA’s monopolistic means? How about if NASA simply offers cash prizes for the proposed achievements, through this brand new interagency prizes website?

Private space is simply years and years away from even remotely doing what NASA is currently doing. 7 million pounds of thrust. 7 astronauts. 2 million moving parts. Cargo that’s several tons with the ability to construct station. Mars rovers. Cassini. New Horizons. Hubble. NASA’s yearly budget is not just Shuttle!

I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t want to invest in the Private sector…but give them a chance to grow….that’s all.

We have many of the pieces currently in place. With ULA and USA combined with the private sector and NASA finally able to “jump the shark” – LET’S FLY! Cannot wait to see all that is offered in these interesting times. It’s not all doom and gloom. It’s transition. Instead of pointing at each other – let’s all work together and just MAYBE we’ll share a cigar as we watch our grandchildren walk on Mars? Won’t happen if we’re divided!

Private space is simply years and years away from even remotely doing what NASA is currently doing. 7 million pounds of thrust. 7 astronauts. 2 million moving parts. Cargo that’s several tons with the ability to construct station.

“”We don’t have the money” to finance our space program because the current congress and administration have lavished record levels of debt-financed spending”

And they are simply following in the footsteps of the previous administration. Indeed, the only administrations to submit a balanced budget in the past forty years are the Clinton administration and the Johnson administration (and only the Clinton administration actually carried thorugh on that budget). As you should recall from our last discussion on this topic, when Bush43 took office, the national debt stood at $5,711,817,746,476.20. When he left office, the national debt had increased to $9,188,640,287,930.39.

In Obama’s first term, the national debt is projected to increase to approximately $13,700,000,000,000, of which 70% comes from previous administrations (25% from Bush43 alone).

Once again, you substitute poorly considered political bias for rational thought. No administration since Kennedy has given NASA the level of support that it needs to succeed. instead, it has been treated as a series of vanity projects, with each president seeing it as a way to make his mark on history – without realizing that the best way to do so is to allow NASA to continue on its current path.

Jason: Private space is simply years and years away from even remotely doing what NASA is currently doing.

Who do you think manufactures all that equipment, Jason? Private industry – aka “contractors”. NASA puts out a request for bid with a budgeted amount of money for the project and private industry bids on it.

Private industry is more than capable of doing what NASA does for much less money, and for profit if the government would get out of the way.

Not to mention the thousands of our soldiers killed, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, and millions of Iraqis who had to flee their country to avoid the violence.

I have always been a strong supporter of NASA and the manned space program. It burns me up to see the waste of our militaristic foreign policy, when that money could have been spent on peaceful exploration of the heavens.

In the interest of scientific curiosity did the Farmers almanac get it right vs the long range government predictions now that cooler air is forecast? remember the farmers predicted a cooler fall and the feds a warmer fall. That course seems to have abruptly ended seeing the 40s are predicted next week.

We already got it, but you haven’t been paying close enough attention.

So quit trying to hoodwink those who’ve already figured how we got into this NASA mess in the first place, pilgrim.

The question is now, how do we lead the world into 21st Century space.

In the battle for the Frontier, what is at stake is whether the United States will lead the world into space using its most important and powerful tool, or relinquish itself to second or third world status by repeating the failed policies of the past.

We can continue to operate NASA & space exploration as we once did ARPANET, or open it up like we did the internet to competition & innovation, to infinity & beyond.

Contrast this with the internet: largely created by government agencies and the military, the technologies and the net itself were thrown open to the people, in effect subsidized by the government, and look at what has happened. (Oh, you are, as you are reading my words on it.)

It offends pioneers & patriots alike to see NASA feasting on the taxpayer & operating more like the socialist central commands of the Kremlin & Big Oil.

Since the glory of Apollo, our space program has been run as a socialized central command system. It employs select personnel to design and build expensive, single-purpose systems that meet limited objectives at maximum possible cost — operating in a system of contracts and patronage that rewarded activity, redundant job creation and cash flow more than successful achievement of its goals.

It’s time for a space program that incorporates the genius and innovation of private enterprise, goes beyond expensive single-purpose systems, & saves billions of taxpayer dollars.

The problem is, corporations need cash to stay afloat. Currently, there isn’t a market in space to generate income for industry. The government will still have to subsidize space exploration until it becomes profitable. So, until we have a flourishing market in space, taxpayers will continue to pay, no matter what.Just out of curiosity, how does China finance its space program? What about other countries? What are their ultimate goals? Someone please chime in on this, my google button is broken.

“Currently, there isn’t a market in space to generate income for industry.”

Actually, there is; private companies now launch the majority of satellites each year.

What is still in development is the market for space tourism. There are companies offering sub-orbital rides for $50,000 or $200,000, and some offering orbital rides to the ISS or to private habitats. At least two companies will launch their manned versions within the next two years (VirginGalactic and SpaceX); there are at least five other companies that are expected to follow within the next three years.

“The government will still have to subsidize space exploration until it becomes profitable.”

The government will always have to subsidize exploration, either directly (via grants and programs such as NASA) or indirectly (via tax deductions). That was how the West was settled; the government made cheap land available and gave much of it to the railroad companies to encourage people to move west. And it is probably how the next frontier will be settled as well.

“Just out of curiosity, how does China finance its space program?”

The same way they finance everything else “Shut up unless you want to be shot”.

“What about other countries?”

Japan, the EU, Indonesia, and other space-capable countries tend to treat their equivalent of NASA much as we do ours: it gets funded mostly from government funds, but also earns money for launching satellites and for selling images. The EU’s program gets a considerable amount of money from Arianne, just as Russia gets a lot of cash from Soyuz.

JohnD – thanks! I was thinking more along the lines of exploration, rather than satellites and tourism, but of course those do generate income.Regarding your comment on government subsides – that was exactly my point: no matter how you slice it, the government will always be involved.Thank you also for the country comparison.